New Award from the American Geophysical Union Recognizes Excellence in Climate Communications

AGU Release No. 11–34 18 October 2011

WASHINGTON, DC — In recognition of his exceptional work as a climate communicator, the American Geophysical Union (AGU) has selected Gavin Schmidt as the recipient of its inaugural Climate Communications Prize.

Schmidt is a climate scientist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and co-founder of the RealClimate.org, a blog that covers areas of science related to climate-from present-day measurements to paleoclimate proxies, from natural climate variation to anthropogenic change. Schmidt has also worked with photographers on a popular science book, on museum exhibits, and on online courses and has often appeared on TV and radio and in print.

The award, which was established by AGU earlier this year, recognizes excellence in climate communication as well as the promotion of scientific literacy, clarity of messaging, and efforts to foster respect and understanding for science-based values related to climate change.

“AGU created this award to raise the visibility of climate change as a critical issue facing the world today, to demonstrate our support for scientists who commit themselves to the effective communication of climate change science, and to encourage more scientists to engage with the public and policy makers on how climate research can contribute to the sustainability of our planet,” said AGU president Michael McPhaden. “That’s why we are so pleased to recognize Gavin for his dedicated leadership and outstanding scientific achievements. We hope that his work will serve as an inspiration for others.”

Schmidt said, “Talking to the public and the media is often neglected in assessing people’s contributions, and yet, as taxpayer-funded scientists we have a collective responsibility to share the expertise we have with the broader public. I’m very happy that the efforts I’ve made-in collaboration with many colleagues-have been recognized by this new award. I hope that this can serve as an encouragement for more scientists to dip their toe into the public discussions.”

The prize, which comes with a $25,000 cash award, is sponsored by Nature’s Own, a Boulder, Colo.-based company specializing in the sale of minerals, fossils, and decorative stone specimens.

“This award will help increase communication of our scientific understanding of climate change and its consequences, and I congratulate Gavin for all that he has accomplished and what it means for the scientific community,” said Nature’s Own president and founder Roy Young, an AGU member. “Gavin has worked tirelessly to bring the work of scientists in understanding our changing world to both the public debate as well as to the broader scientific community.”

The award will be presented to Schmidt in December during the honors celebration at AGU’s Fall Meeting in San Francisco.

The American Geophysical Union is a not-for-profit, professional, scientific organization with more than 60,000 members representing over 148 countries. AGU advances the Earth and space sciences through its scholarly publications, conferences, and outreach programs.

133 thoughts on “Congratulations to Dr. Gavin Schmidt”

So a researcher pushing his own agenda is getting an award designed to reward people for pushing their agendas. I hope he won’t be taking that $25,000, though, profiting from “Big Mineral”. Those companies destroy mother earth, ripping rocks and fossils and causing scars in order to make a profit.

“The award, which was established by AGU earlier this year, recognizes excellence in climate communication as well as the promotion of scientific literacy, clarity of messaging, and efforts to foster respect and understanding for science-based values related to climate change.”

“Respect and understanding for science-based values?”

There is not one Warmista who understands scientific method or who, however inadvertently, practices it. There is not one of them who has attempted to explicate the relationship between computer models and actual data. Everything they say about the relationship is hand waving. Consequently, empiricism and a respect for experience are not among their science-based values. Thus, this award is perfect for Gavin Schmidt.

Is this a euphemism for the Joseph Goebbels award for Excellence in Heavily Censored, Purely Political Climate Propaganda?

Shameful!

Yes, I too have been completely censored at RealClimate (for the thought crime of presenting directly cited and directly linked to peer reviewed science which is judged to be “inconvenient” to Gavin’s purely political agenda).

Schmidt has indeed done a good job. In presenting data, current analysis, and the impact of politics related to climate science. A YouTube search w his name produces lots of good examples. Thanks for noting his award.

As “climate” is not an identifiable event that can be measured in the labratory or even in the field, there are no instruments that can measure “climate” one wonders How you really “study climate” .Lets start by realing defining “climate” it is a average patern at on location.
Definitions of the Climate Discussion
What is Climate?
Definition:A few hundred thousand weather days end to end for a specific location. ( an average pattern)
How many climates are there in the world?
Every part of the country and the world has a unique climate -the south of France, the North slope of Alaska, the heart of Africa, the northeast Great Lakes region of the US ,the north of Italy, the south of Italy,thousands of different climates etc.
What is weather?
The atmospheric conditions where you are.
Can mankind control the weather?
We have tried for thousands of years from the Indian rainmaker, to the cloud seeders of the 1950-60. Man can not control the weather, then how the hell can man be controlling the climate. This whole B.S of MANN-made global warming is a fairy tale. The MANNipulation of temperature data is a crime against humanity and these criminals should be put in jail.
Be careful of the Pied Pipers of Gorezillaism- remember Hamlin- except it is happening to ignorant supposed adults.
Climatologists”- are temperature historians. If they chose to project into the future they have gone from historians to Flat Screen fortune tellers. “computer generated Models” “garbage in is garbage out”

Congratulations to Dr. Schmidt, whose efforts have won him a well-deserved place among award-winning climate communicators like Rajendra Pachauri and Al Gore. Is there a Nobel Peace Prize in Gavin’s future?

Another definition: “Climatologist” : A temperature and weather historian. If one projects to future events then they are “fortune teller” Weathermen do a somewhat better job of predicting the future- 30 to 60 % correct.

To Gavin Schmidt’s credit, on the handful of occassions that I’ve interacted with him via the comment section on RealClimate, I’ve found him to be courteous, knowledgeable, and to my surprise, willing to acknowledge areas of uncertainty. Even though I don’t much agree with his views, I do respect him. Your mileage may vary.

Shame he has not got it in himself to communicate with sceptics and feels the need to censor the debate and posts on R.C.Why you are congratulating Anthony? i do not know? he has not got the decency to reply to your e mails. An arrogant self centred, self interested man,
“as for science based values”????he’s forgotten the meaning!

Its troubling when these kinds of organizations put money into the pockets of public officials as a reward for that public official saying things that promote the fund raising agenda of the sponsoring organization. I think public officials should be explicitly barred from receiving these sorts of monetary inducements.

Could there be a genetic link for global warming? The pictures of Gavin is strikingly similar to Mann. With this data we can also conclude there is a robust link to testosterone as visually represented in the hairline. The increase in testosterone has been shown to make the human body warmer. This increase in warmth not CO2 is the direct cause of CAGW.

// silly off //

Congrats on the award hope he spends the cash on something nice like beach house in the Maldives.

Personally, I like Gavin Schmidt. I do not like his ideological approach to science. Propaganda is a means to an end. It is communication but is NOT science. So as long as it is a “communication/propaganda” award, I am happy for him. Congrats. GK

I respectfully disagree in this case. It’s a bit like congratulation someone on receiving the Joseph Goebbels award for public speaking, or the John M. Browning humanitarian award.

Perhaps I am a bit embittered to watch a public servant operate a personal website pushing a political agenda be rewarded in such a manner. If he was a cop, he couldn’t accept the cash. As a ‘scientist’ it is apparently okay to be rewarded for activism.

At some point reality has to come crashing into these people. I hope I live long enough to see it, and I hope they live long enough to realize the damage they’ve caused.

What an odd award. Are there similar awards in other fields of science? This award seems to be designed specifically to promote the alarmist view of global warming. They still think talking more loudly is a substitute for proof. With that in mind, Schmidt certainly deserves the award.

“AGU created this award to raise the visibility of climate change as a critical issue facing the world today, to demonstrate our support for scientists who commit themselves to the effective communication of climate change science, and to encourage more scientists to engage with the public and policy makers on how climate research can contribute to the sustainability of our planet,”
Don’t the shrinks call this positive re-enforcement ? It is a shame that science comes in second.

dougsherman says:
October 20, 2011 at 10:45 am
ooh, impressive, it must be true….
————————————————-
Or the “I saw it on the telly so it must be true” syndrome. How to influence (with a view to subsequently manipulating) public opinion, lesson 101. The mainstream media reports these examples of institutional and corporate self-pleasuring, because that’s what the MSM does. It is completely owned and directed by corporate or institutional interests, who are all part of the same ruthless, murderous, mafia-style global gang.

Long overdue recognition for Gavin who works selflessly, in his spare time, to educate the Public
about the catastrophic consequences of Climate Change and combat the well-funded “Denier Machine” (sarc).

“AGU created this award to raise the visibility of climate change as a critical issue facing the world today, to demonstrate our support for scientists who commit themselves to the effective communication of climate change science, and to encourage more scientists to engage with the public and policy makers on how climate research can contribute to the sustainability of our planet,” said AGU president Michael McPhaden.

IN other words, they created it specifically to give to Gavin! I have just created an award “Head of Household of the year in my Household,” with the only problem being i don’t have $25,000 to give to myself. Sigh.

I find it odd that he has the same beard style as Mann, and Richard Black (the eminent pseudo-climate scientist-cum-global-warming-alarmist-reporter on the BBC). Have they all been seen in the same room together?

Now I’ve done a presentation myself. I think it’s a brilliant presentation and firstrate science. I adapted and enlarged Warren Meyer’s work. But, er, will Cardiff let me present this in their series??? No, no, of course not. Conflicting science doesn’t exist, of course. As Gavin explains, in U-tube above,

“when we get a conflict between what the science is perceived to be saying, and what other people hold dear – their politics, their ethics, their community, their religion, people want to reject the science before they reject all these other things…. Nobody calls me up from any point of authority and says, hey, is that global warming a real thing or not…”

I congratulated him, and in a response to a critical comment I posted this: I am disappointed that a few of my posts were deleted or boreholed, but that’s no more important than stubbing my toe while hiking in the forest.

He is getting the award for what is in fact a good blog. that I might identify some imperfections hardly matters. Every responsible blogmaster “snips” some entries.

Well-deserved, but not in the way they intended. I credit Gavin, more than any other individual, with redirecting my initial positive interest in AGW towards skepticsm.

RealClimate was the first place I went to when I became concerned about this AGW thing. If it hadn’t been for Gavin, I might have been happily reading RealClimate all along.

After I realized, from his offensive (in multiple meanings) style and they strange way that comment threads seemed to end when Gavin had the last sarcastic word, that RealClimate was a propaganda site, I went to other sites, such as this one, the Bishop’s, and of course Climateaudit, and realized that AGW wasn’t science as I understood science at all, but rather politics, and of a particularly dirty kind.

To be recognized by one’s peers is to be expected in the case of G. Schmidt. Some may not respect him and his team as professionals, others do. In the science of the Earth’s climate system, I think he is not a net positive influence.

Maybe he’d like to come communicate to everyone why the tropospheric hot spot never appeared. Maybe he’d like to communicate to everyone why the 14 year study of atmospheric infra red downwelling shows less, 3/4ths of the time than before; the one, released last april.
Maybe he’d like to communicate how all that ice is melting and yet there’s no perceptible difference in hydrological cycling; in fact maybe he would like to communicate how there’s more energy instantaneously in this system yet turbulence and storms are down. Maybe he’d like to communicate why the optical astronomy and, the infra red astronomy fields, can’t find a student, professor, journalist, janitor among them, who can show us evidence of rising atmospheric heat; in form of earth-emission spectrum infra red, or any heat at all in form of increased atmospheric scintillation: the stars twinkling… and maybe he’d like to communicate why the field that builds, calibrates, and deploys the assemblies that flex telescope mirrors
is utterly silent about how ever more energy in the atmosphere is necessitating ever more flex of said mirrors: complete with communicating how they have to use ever longer plungers, more powerful motors, and mirrors of different thicknesses or composition to stand the strain.

Maybe he’d like to communicate why temperatures stalled out somewhere between 1995 and 1998 and haven’t risen one iota since; with Phil Jones actually commenting how he’d (effectively) be darned if he’d go telling the scientific community the earth had actually started cooling around ’98 and not risen a bit since; and maybe he’d like to communicate why it is that the sole source of temperatures involving stagnant temps: barely cooled, not even statistically significantly, but no warming – is the RAW TEMPERATURE DATA PLACED ONLINE BY LAW, the SKEPTICS were CHECKING his and RC’s and N.A.S.A.’s ever more bombastic claims against.
Maybe he would like to communicate how it is that He, Mann, Jones, Briffa, Trenberth, – all the people who were furiously calculating doomsday – didn’t recognize they weren’t even using real statistics until the Head of the Royal Statistical Society noted so.
Yea he’s a communicator all right.

RDCII: After I realized, from his offensive (in multiple meanings) style and they strange way that comment threads seemed to end when Gavin had the last sarcastic word, that RealClimate was a propaganda site, I went to other sites, such as this one, the Bishop’s, and of course Climateaudit, and realized that AGW wasn’t science as I understood science at all, but rather politics, and of a particularly dirty kind.

I think that you are overreacting. However, I do support two of your observations:

1. It is good to be able to read WUWT, ClimateEtc, and RC in alternation, and in combination with reading peer-reviewed science. RC, in fact Dr. Schmidt himself, put up the best analysis of the recent CERN experiment on cosmic rays, of all blogs. They have had some other “bests” as well.

2. They frequently delete perfectly reasonable posts from me that point to limitations in the climate science, or flaws in the claims made in some of their posts. Or at least I claim they were perfectly reasonable. Over time, I came to see how their pattern of deleting my posts directed my attention to what they think are the most serious weaknesses in their knowledge. Or I saw where their knowledge had cavities. I became more skeptical overall. If I am indeed reasonable (I maintain that no one can judge himself or herself fairly), and if other reasonable skeptics have had the same experience, then RealClimate may in the long run produce the opposite effect from increasing public support for their view of AGW.

I think he earned his award. You can in fact learn a lot of science by reading RealClimate and following links (some obviously better than others) provided by the team of regular commenters. You can certainly come to understand the evidence that leads them to believe as strongly as they do. But there are limitations in their knowledge that they absolutely refuse to take seriously.

He was probably the lead communicator in charge of Al Gore’s massive fail youtube CO2-test implosion.

I remember when Schmidt and Mann were saying “Hey lay off we’re just starting to study a lot of this ourselves” in general to people asking them obvious questions that revealed their radiation gurus’ lack of grasp of how much simply wrong, information, they were ‘communicating.’

I remember when they, after being just RAKED over the coals revealing them UTTERLY clueless about atmospheric radiation travel, simply CLAMMED UP: and REFUSED to even SPEAK without every room they did so in being in ABSOLUTE CONTROL so no one could simply walk up, grab a microphone and STOP: any ONE of them: Schmidt, Mann, Hansen- i.n. t.h.e.i.r. t.r.a.c.k.s.

I remember when they claimed to be “communicating” – listen to this – the END of the WORLD – but were TOO AFRAID to even let FRIENDLIES comment at R.C. who showed too much grasp of atmospheric energy handling, and they hid there and like adolescent teens refusing to leave their rooms, said they were NO LONGER ABLE to BEAR the LACK of GRASP of the ENTIRE EARTH of a HEATER they PREDICTED was going to APPEAR in the SKY and END the WORLD.

I don’t have any respect for him, for the other frauds in his international and interstate funds scamming con.
And I’ll ask him six or eight questions in a row that will simply make him afraid to touch his keyboard. Bring him around to answer some questions and we’ll see what a “communicator” he is.

the fritz says:
October 20, 2011 at 1:17 pm
“Who is that Anthony about who people talk more than about Gavin?”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That would be Anthony Watts, the chap that runs this blog:http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/about2/

There is not one Warmista who understands scientific method or who, however inadvertently, practices it.

——–
Define “warmista”.

Scientists can have differing viewpoints and still both understand the scientific method. An extreme and highly inaccurate viewpoint such as yours serves no useful purpose other than political polarization.

Your guns-a-blazing, caution-to-the-winds accusations of malfeasance and misconduct, like Steve McIntyre’s before you, are simply poison to grown-up discussions of real issues. You appear to be well aware of that, and yet continue to indulge in it – even to the point of touting for partisan comments. One can therefore safely conclude that you are not actually interested in grown-up discussions of real issues. So be it.

And this is the kind of Schmidt hysterical bollocks Climate Communication the AGU believes merits a prize?

I’ve posted the following comment at RC. It is currently awaiting moderation. I have made sure it is polite and doesn’t use inflammatory language such as ‘warmist’. It does, however, tell the painful truth about Gavin’s highly censorious actions. I await to see if it is deleted, and if not, whether GS will reply:

“Whenever I have tried to post on RC (polite) comments that disagree with ideas put forward by Gavin and others I have had every single comment deleted by the moderators. However, when I have posted comments on sceptic sites that disagree with the sceptic author none of my comments have ever been deleted.

I hope this award will allow you to reflect Gavin, and hopefully accept that truly effective communication always allows both sides of the debate to be heard at all times.”

DirkH says:
October 20, 2011 at 11:20 am
So this is the AGU’s idea of science communication.
Speaking of the AGU; here’s something from Chris Mooney’s photo album:
“Gavin and I”

[I haven’t put in the link, I found it difficult to get rid of.]
====================================
This Chris Mooney?

“I’ve been meaning to thrown in my congratulations to Gavin Schmidt of NASA and RealClimate.org, who is the first recipient of the American Geophysical Union’s new $ 25,000 annual prize for the year’s top climate science communicator.

Yes, you read that right, $ 25,000! (Full disclosure: I am on the board of directors of the American Geophysical Union, but I did not select Schmidt for the prize or have fore-knowledge of his selection; nor was I involved in the creation of the prize, which is funded by Nature’s Own.)

Schmidt is a very worthy choice—RealClimate.org has revolutionized climate science communication online since its inception in the mid-2000s. And Schmidt has built from that platform to become a major commentator, and a lucid one at that, on outlets like CNN.

WASHINGTON—The American Geophysical Union’s board of directors has approved two new members who will bring expertise in science policy and communication: policy advisor Floyd DesChamps and author Chris Mooney. Their selection reflects AGU’s commitment to applying the results of scientific research to challenges faced by the global community, many of which are based in the geosciences.

Now, the way that’s written it appears that expertise in communication is to come from Mooney – odd he knew nothing about who was to get the inaugral prize for ‘science communication’…

Hmm, is his opening a freudian slip? “I’ve been meaning to thrown in my congratulations to Gavin Schmidt of NASA and RealClimate.org, who is the first recipient of the American Geophysical Union’s new $ 25,000 annual prize for the year’s top climate science communicator.”

I bet he was thrown by it! Even his title a bit of sour grapes, perhaps? Still, an otherwise excellent piece of propagamotion, maybe some other prize will be concocted for him later as long as he continues to toe the party line.

“After I realized, from his offensive (in multiple meanings) style and they strange way that comment threads seemed to end when Gavin had the last sarcastic word, that RealClimate was a propaganda site, I went to other sites, such as this one, the Bishop’s, and of course Climateaudit, and realized that AGW wasn’t science as I understood science at all, but rather politics, and of a particularly dirty kind. ”

Yeah there definitely is a shift in effort, abandoning the science of climate and going for the science of communication. Hansen – we scientists are poor communicators – big oil funded sceptics are the specialists in this, hogging all the MSM space; Al Gore – the Climate Reality Project- let’s get out there, cook up a video CO2 warming experiment and blitz the world with (our) reality of climate change; BEST Berkeley PR-mass media substitute for peer-reviewed science; now AGU inaugural award for communication of global warming science by deleting critical commentary… sanitize the debate so there is only one side.

After scrabbling around and buying an app from the Apple AppStore that lets me take screencaps on my iphone, I then saw that RC had let my comment through!

I feel I’ve achieved great things today: I’ve taught a high-school student how to find the internal angles of a polygon, shown her mother how to use her iPad, recovered some files on a PC that crashed at work, fixed my beloved bicycle, bought a useful App (for once), and managed to get a comment past the mods at RC.

Hmmm…watched the video. A very dangerous, plausable, reasonable type avoiding telling you his agenda. I can see why he would get a reward from warmistas. But I do agree with him on one thing, if scientists would go out and speak about the topic explaining the actual scientific evidence rather than being cowed by consensus and the research funders into mitigating the message through fear that would be much more healthy than where we are today.

I support KenB’s idea that “Its about time that Watts Up With That readers were given the serious duty of choosing our communicator of the year award“.

The award should be the Anthony Watts Award for Communicating Science (AWACS). This is an appropriate acronym, as the other AWACS “can be detected by opposing forces beyond its own detection range” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_Warning_And_Control_System) This tallies nicely with the extraordinary reach of WUWT.

After reading RealClimate articles, readers’ comments and Gavin’s responses over the past few years, my overall impression is that he is to science communication and civility as Rosie O’Donnell is to ballet.

Good to see those financial rewards rolling in and making clear to everyone, that climate “science” is now much more about communication instead of science and the Soros footprint instead of the carbon footprint.

In recognition of his exceptional work as a ONE WAY climate communicator, the American Geophysical Union (AGU) has selected Gavin Schmidt as the recipient of its inaugural Climate Communications Prize.

Whenever I have tried to post on RC (polite) comments that disagree with ideas put forward by Gavin and others I have had every single comment deleted by the moderators. However, when I have posted comments on sceptic sites that disagree with the sceptic author none of my comments have ever been deleted.

I hope this award will allow you to reflect Gavin, and hopefully accept that truly effective communication always allows both sides of the debate to be heard at all times.

[Response: Hmm. To the extent this is true (which I very much doubt), I suspect it has to do with very different understandings of what ‘polite’ means.–eric]

RDCII says:
October 20, 2011 at 1:12 pm
Well-deserved, but not in the way they intended. I credit Gavin, more than any other individual, with redirecting my initial positive interest in AGW towards skepticsm.

RealClimate was the first place I went to when I became concerned about this AGW thing. If it hadn’t been for Gavin, I might have been happily reading RealClimate all along.

After I realized, from his offensive (in multiple meanings) style and they strange way that comment threads seemed to end when Gavin had the last sarcastic word, that RealClimate was a propaganda site, I went to other sites, such as this one, the Bishop’s, and of course Climateaudit, and realized that AGW wasn’t science as I understood science at all, but rather politics, and of a particularly dirty kind.

Well, this prestigious award prompted me to go and have a look. I logged on concerned that perhaps I had missed something in the climate debate and that a wave of revelatory reason was about to hit me. I needn’t have worried, Quite apart from the (relatively) infrequent posts, I didn’t find much there that was too taxing and an awful lot that isn’t science. By comparison I find myself stretched by the science content on Wattsupwiththat on a regular basis. Keep up the good work.

Anthony has achieved sainthood. He is Saint Anthony. The original Saint Anthony is a favorite of artists. He is shown among many demons who are scratching and pounding with all their might to no effect. Yes, the comparison is apt.

Can not agree with congratulations. On another blog it appears when the Schmidt number (Sc) was mentioned that he had to look up the properties which made up this dimensionless number in Wikipedia, and then asked what had that to do anything and then left the discussion. In my view he has no understanding of heat and mass transfer and that maybe the reason he does not allow free discuss on that biased website RealClimate. The repression of scientific discussion is a reason he should be ostracized rather than given an award. One only can put out misinformation in communications attempts if one does not understand what they are talking about.

“The award, which was established by AGU earlier this year, recognizes excellence in climate communication as well as the promotion of scientific literacy, clarity of messaging, and efforts to foster respect and understanding for science-based values related to climate change.”

I wonder if they might establish new awards. How about the award for excellence in scientific method, as follows:

The award, which was established by AGU [when Hell froze over], recognizes excellence in scientific explication as well as the promotion of literacy in scientific method, clarity of explanation, and efforts to foster respect and understanding for science as the critical enterprise par excellence related to hypotheses about climate change.

Another award might be for excellence in the ethics of science, as follows:

The award, which was established by AGU [when Hell froze over], recognizes excellence in the practice of scientific method as well as the promotion of literacy in the moral demands of scientific method, clarity of explanation, and efforts to foster respect and understanding for science as the critical enterprise par excellence related to hypotheses about climate change.

Who knows? If these guys were imaginative enough they might actually contribute to Western Civilization.

In case someone might be wondering about the moral demands of scientific method, the most basic is that you make your results replicable. That means that you provide everything necessary to replicate your experiment. When you don the garb of science, you promise to all other scientists that you will do this. So, all your data and all your methods must be made available. Not doing this is violating a trust. That is a serious matter.

The American Medical Association makes it quite clear to all physicians that they must not practice in a way that causes the public to conclude that doctors kill patients. Why? The moral reasoning is very simple. The most valuable asset of doctors is public trust. If the public does not trust physicians then the public will not take their problems to physicians. That would cripple medical practice.

A similar principle should be practiced in science. Scientists must not practice in a way that causes the public to distrust scientists. The obvious conclusion is disband the IPCC.

It seems I have ruffled a few feathers at RC. I have posted a further comment, I hope it gets past the mods. Sorry for the huge amount of following text in bold, I just wanted to make it obvious as to which is the comment I am currently posting now on WUWT and which is the comment I posted at RC:

Andy says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
21 Oct 2011 at 3:33 AM
“drive-by denier” “hateful rubbish” “guileless” “lying little weasel” “silly little comments” “antiscience idiocy” “nothing but nonsense”.
Having made my previous comment (the first one that the mods have let through, which I thank them for), I went to bed for the night. I wake up this morning to read the thread once more, only to be greeted by the barrage of comments I have highlighted above. I could start returning insults, but that is not what I’m here for.

I had merely asked Gavin to keep the doors of discussion open. The true scientific method insists that no science is ever ‘settled’, and therefore the debate will never be over (in any branch of science and with any theory). I am not currently convinced by the AGW position and nor are many scientists all around the world – it is every scientist’s right to take a view that is contrary to others, without meeting a wall of derision (I implore you not to use the word ‘denier’ – whilst it doesn’t particularly upset me, Jewish sceptic friends of mine find it extremely offensive, for reasons that are hopefully obvious)

Now the mods have let one of my comments through, I hope they will allow more of my comments through on other threads here at RC. I look forward to having meaningful, constructive, and polite discussions with other visitors to this site.

Regards,

Andy

As I said in my comment – I hope RC will continue to let my post on their site. We shall see….

More smoke, more mirrors, more conning a jaded general public into unquestioning belief in a nonexistent (or at least very very minor) phenomenon. It’s a bit like listening to BBC radio, where the words “climate change”, often prefixed with “manmade”, are repeatedly forced into every possible programme (and quite a few others) to hammer them indelibly into the minds of the hapless listeners.

On the other hand, though, Schmidt has certainly “fostered respect and understanding for science-based values related to climate change”, as the existence of WUWT, and other real-science-oriented websites, proves. Therefore I hereby take pleasure in additionally awarding him Steve’s Award for Disinformation, for precisely the same activities. Sorry, Gav, no cash involved here as, unlike you, I don’t receive telephone numbers of money from governments for peddling propaganda. Congratulations indeed, Dr. Gavin Schmidt, SAD. May your good work continue!

>> “While we are polar opposites, and Dr. Schmidt can’t find it within himself to respond to any of my emails or to allow my comments and many others to appear on RealClimate, let me offer congratulations anyway.”

When trying to be the bigger man, it is not prudent to make mention that the other is the lesser man.